Turin Shroud breaking news!

Hitchens

May be the genuine article after all


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/turin-shroud-may-date-from-time-of-jesus-30003189.html

Canis Lupus

Meh... It's just a dirty towel whatever way you look at it.

Iwasfrozen

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Meh... It's just a dirty towel whatever way you look at it.

No it really isn't, you're just being disingenuous sake of it.

Mr.McLovin

that was a bit of a let down, thought they were gonna clone him

Ghost Buster

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it really isn't, you're just being disingenuous sake of it.

But it really is. Its a piece of material (not a towel but meh) and its dirty. Maybe its also magic but it IS a dirty material.

Hitchens

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Meh... It's just a dirty towel whatever way you look at it.

You'd be dirty too if you were 2000 years old

Mr Freeze

That articles reads like some sort of Sci Fi.

Radiation emissions, carbon-14 isotopes, X-Rays, Neutrons, etc...

F**kin' wha?

Donkey Oaty

Have they tested it for miraculous healing powers? That'd prove it is genuine.

irish_goat

Mr Freeze wrote: »

That articles reads like some sort of Sci Fi.

Radiation emissions, carbon-14 isotopes, X-Rays, Neutrons, etc...

F**kin' wha?

I love that, when it suits, religious folk are happy to use science to try and prove quackery like this.

the_monkey

Yes it dates from the time of Jesus therefore it has to be Jesus , has to be , can't be anyone else - not any other of the 1000's of men around that time that were crucified and had beards....

-edit also it's funny how religious people will accept science when it prooves something like this is from the time frame they want it to be.

RobbieTheRobber

I cant believe i read that stupid irish daily mail(sorry independent article) anyway I did read it. Which is more than the articles editor it would seem.

Found this brilliant line in it too

Last year scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy dated it to between 300BC and AD400 – still hundreds of years after Christ, who is believed to have died between 30-36AD.

:eek:

Agricola

I thought the thing was that the C14 dating was only allowed on a small piece of the very edge of the shroud, which they know believe could have been a medieval repair. They've never actually been able to test the centre of it, as they aren't allowed by the vatican.

Gotham

The Italian team believes the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock.

Not likely. Are they saying nuclear fission occurred from an earthquake?
Or are they saying that fussive radiation from the center of the earth escaped because of an earthquake.

Mr.McLovin

BG wis band wrote: »

Feck all this 'magic' talk. If it was used to wrap the body of a man who was called Jesus 2000-odd years ago, that's something that I find interesting anyway.

ah sure it could have been Zebidiah the serial rapist for all we know

Tzardine

The windows in my car keep fogging up no matter what I do. I have tried all sorts of cleaning products.

Maybe a bang of this cloth will do the job. We will see then if it has magic powers.

kneemos

Not a big fan of their idolatry and symbolism whatever it is,find it all weird.

Plazaman

Dr Google doesn't seem to help me here but I do remember about 10 years ago somebody trying hundreds of permutations of cloth types and inks, dirts, bloods and all sorts of others things and still were unable to recreate an image as clear as the shroud simply by pressing it against a person/mannequin.

They had said it would take brush strokes and physical drawing to get an image that clear. They weren't doubting the age of the cloth, just how whats on it, got on it.

Mr Freeze

irish_goat wrote: »

I love that, when it suits, religious folk are happy to use science to try and prove quackery like this.

Exactly. Use science when it suits then, and its a real stretch too to say
"an earthquake hid the fact it was older than carbon dating could prove, here's the science bit" /Bishop whisks his hair at the camera, cut to cool graphics showing the particles going into the shroud. :pac:

Muise...

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Exactly. Use science when it suits then, and its a real stretch too to say
"an earthquake hid the fact it was older than carbon dating could prove, here's the science bit" /Bishop whisks his hair at the camera, cut to cool graphics showing the particles going into the shroud. :pac:

In fairness, the Catholic Church is only against the applications of some scientific findings - eg stem cell research - unlike the various bible literalists who make up their own "science".

Knasher

This sounds to me like a group of scientists who are trying to promote their research and are using the press around the turin shroud to do so. They are the researchers who wrote a paper proposing this piezonuclear effect (not that I have any reason to doubt their original research), and now they are promoting it by exclaiming that "hey, maybe this explains the turin shroud", and that's all there seems to be to this.

The more plausible answer right now remains that it is a fake. Unless they get more evidence to back up this hypothesis, then that will remain the most likely explanation. I'm guessing we never hear about this again.

Hitchens

Irish people who scoff at the Shroud will go over the top buying Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc, jerseys, for their children to worship at. Strange :rolleyes:

Muise...

Hitchens wrote: »

Irish people who scoff at the Shroud will go over the top buying Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc, jerseys, for their children to worship at. Strange :rolleyes:

That's materialism, not though/belief, so nowhere near as bad as the tooth fairy/Santa Claus/homeopathy/Steiner school for parents who claim to have abandoned religion.

aujopimur

It's up there with the magic beans for me.

foggy_lad

The days when the poor huddled ignorant masses believed any of this hucus pocus bull from the church or its fanboys are long gone!

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Muise... wrote: »

That's materialism, not though/belief, so nowhere near as bad as the tooth fairy/Santa Claus/homeopathy/Steiner school for parents who claim to have abandoned religion.

Ah yes how dare non religious people make their kids happy. The pricks.

Muise...

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Ah yes how dare non religious people make their kids happy. The pricks.

Pretty sure kids would be happy with gifts received directly from their parents.

The parents are making themselves happy with a complex set of lies that their children will have to adopt once they realise the truth, in order to lie to the younger ones.

My point isn't that they're pricks; it's that most people who claim to have abandoned religion have merely abandoned the one they were saddled with at birth, and replaced it with all sorts of other religious crap from a smorgasbord of irrationality and comfort.

Temptamperu

Hitchens wrote: »

Irish people who scoff at the Shroud will go over the top buying Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc, jerseys, for their children to worship at. Strange :rolleyes:

Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc are real whereas your religion is not.

spurious

There was an earthquake in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus of Nazareth's death and no-one mentioned it until now?
I would have thought that, with rolling rocks from tombs and hands in people's sides would have merited a mention.

Hitchens

Temptamperu wrote: »

Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc are real whereas your religion is not.

You're one of those parents then?

Temptamperu

spurious wrote: »

There was an earthquake in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus of Nazareth's death and no-one mentioned it until now?
I would have thought that, with rolling rocks from tombs and hands in people's sides would have merited a mention.

Lots of major stuff happened thats not "recorded". Well it was recorded, but the catholic church have destroyed anything that could compete with them and if they didnt destroy it they adopted it from earlier religions.

Hitchens wrote: »

You're one of those parents then?

I dont have or want children and i don't like sports, but at least that's real.

McDermotX

Pretty sure the idea of an earthquake around that period in the region is pretty well established at this stage.
Whether you believe Jesus (i.e. the one a lot of people believe in) was about at the same time, I don't think anyone can say, but there's more than enough evidence of geological upheaval in the region to strongly indicate earthquake activity.

Gotham

Temptamperu wrote: »

Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc are real whereas your religion is not.

I'm trying to figure out which of the two Hitchens brothers he might be...

Also, this site is great for things like this.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Concise summaries of why things are bull**** with citations.

wretcheddomain

Even if it were a copy of Jesus, still means nothing - no more than a copy of the average Joe or Brian Cowen. A completely useless filthy scrap of cloth.

Hitchens

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Even if it were a copy of Jesus, still means nothing - no more than a copy of the average Joe or Brian Cowen. A completely useless filthy scrap of cloth.

As against a useless filthy scrap of cloth with a millionaire footballer's name on the back and worshipped slavishly by your young fella as taught to him by you

Guy:Incognito

Hitchens wrote: »

Irish people who scoff at the Shroud will go over the top buying Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc, jerseys, for their children to worship at. Strange :rolleyes:

Is liking anything counted as worship?

At least theres proof footballers actually exist. They probably wont try scare you and tell you you'll burn in hell for eternity if you don't do as they say.

If they are jealous, the Vatican could try selling replica shrouds with "Christ 1" on the back.

120_Minutes

From a recent documentary, based off the shroud they extrapolated what the guy might have looked like.

The real face of Jesus? and whaddaya know, he looks like a middle eastern jewish guy and not a conservative white american guy.

Knasher

spurious wrote: »

There was an earthquake in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus of Nazareth's death and no-one mentioned it until now?
I would have thought that, with rolling rocks from tombs and hands in people's sides would have merited a mention.

Bear in mind that there was a full blown zombie invasion at this time, at least according to the bible which describes all the dead pious people waking up from their tombs and roaming into the city, and yet the Romans made no note of them (despite being renowned record keepers).

Stoic lot the Romans, I doubt they would have been fazed by an earthquake if they don't even consider a zombie invasion noteworthy.

ScumLord

It's also been linked to a facecloth and bindings that were apparently ripped off the main shroud and they have been matched up to torn edges. The face cloth has been on official records since 300AD though which is what called into question the shrouds dating.

The latest news I'd heard on it was that they could trace it back to 300AD with the face cloth but couldn't figure out the markings, they said it definitely wasn't painted on but had no way of confirming who it belonged to or even if it was from the time of Jesus.

TwoShedsJackson

Agricola wrote: »

I thought the thing was that the C14 dating was only allowed on a small piece of the very edge of the shroud, which they know believe could have been a medieval repair. They've never actually been able to test the centre of it, as they aren't allowed by the vatican.

Amazing. It's almost as if they knew it was a fake.

Ray Palmer

Hitchens wrote: »

Irish people who scoff at the Shroud will go over the top buying Man Utd, L'pool, Chelsea etc, jerseys, for their children to worship at. Strange :rolleyes:

I scoff at both religion and sport.
The shroud by all accounts is a fake. The guy is the wrong race, height and injuries don't match crucifixion as it would have been carried out in Jesus' time.
Then you have the fact there were so many crucifixions back then . The ability for medieval tech to be able to produce this image matches how it appears. History is littered with religious fakes. From the 6 heads all said to be John the Baptist's by the church at the same time and other obvious money scams followed by the church at the time.
The reason you are meant to kiss the bishop's ring (giggedy) is because it apparently has a piece of the original crucifix in it. Believable? I don't think so.

kneemos

Hitchens wrote: »

As against a useless filthy scrap of cloth with a millionaire footballer's name on the back and worshipped slavishly by your young fella as taught to him by you

One is idolatry the other is being a fan.
One is a bit of fun the other pertains to a belief system and a way of living,much more serious.

Putin

Mr Freeze wrote: »

That articles reads like some sort of Sci Fi.

Radiation emissions, carbon-14 isotopes, X-Rays, Neutrons, etc...

F**kin' wha?

Science, it's been around for awhile you know.

WilyCoyote

"The Shroud has attracted widespread interest ever since Secondo Pia took the first photograph of it in 1898 which showed details which could not be seen by the naked eye.



Last year scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy dated it to between 300BC and AD400 – still hundreds of years after Christ, who is believed to have died between 30-36AD.



Other scientists have previously suggested that neutron radiation may have been responsible for the ghostly image of a crucified man with his arms crossed".
====================================================================================================================
You can't believe what was printed yesterday - nevermind what is supposed to be a basic TShirt printing operation from a couple of thousand years ago.

somuj

Wouldnt you think if god or jesus or any of these other supserstitions beings existed they would show themselves

Temptamperu

somuj wrote: »

Wouldnt you think if god or jesus or any of these other supserstitions beings existed they would show themselves

how dare you want to talk to your god!!! or show he exists hes not a dog and pony show

whiskeyman

It was the 'Juan Sheet does plenty' of its time...

WilyCoyote

120_Minutes wrote: »

From a recent documentary, based off the shroud they extrapolated what the guy might have looked like.

The real face of Jesus? and whaddaya know, he looks like a middle eastern jewish guy and not a conservative white american guy.

If they dredded up his hair he could look like a Rasta.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/pod-blasphemous_rasta_jesus.jpg

BrensBenz

Some time ago, I watched a TV program about the shroud and it seemed to make sense. According to the program makers, and if I remember correctly:

• The shroud was woven many hundreds of years after Jesus and was not typical of cloth from the Holy Land;
• As said above, the wounds did not "fit";
• The proportions of the body were wrong - if the shroud had been draped over a face and body, the result would have been "stretched", something like Mercator's map of the world, etc.

Their explanation was that the shroud is a primitive photograph or, actually, two (primitive) photographs, one of the head and torso and one of the legs. The cloth was steeped in photo-sensitive chemicals and exposed to light, probably through a pinhole "lens". The incorrect proportions are due to the distance between the camera and cloth being changed between exposures. The fact that the image is better seen in "negative" adds some credence to this.

Of course, the identity of the person(s) who tried to sell the idea that the shroud once covered the dead body of Jesus cannot be established. But you have to hand it to them - they perpetrated a scam which has been debated for centuries!

The Diabolical Monocle

A stoner passed out 2000 years ago, his mates thought it would be funny to put a tea-towel over his face.

Ray Palmer

120_Minutes wrote: »

From a recent documentary, based off the shroud they extrapolated what the guy might have looked like.

The real face of Jesus? and whaddaya know, he looks like a middle eastern jewish guy and not a conservative white american guy.

He doesn't look like a middle eastern Jewish person of the time which would look much more like what people would call Muslim looking now. He also very tall for the people of the time as people have been getting taller around the world.

Temptamperu

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He doesn't look like a middle eastern Jewish person of the time which would look much more like what people would call Muslim looking now. He also very tall for the people of the time as people have been getting taller around the world.

From what source? how can you say he was tall when there is no evidence a Jesus of Nazareth even existed?